SAS Loses 100 Million On Bangkok Route

AirPacific747 · Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:02 am

Quoting BA319-131 (Reply 99):
Nor does SAS, they operate A321's and soon A319's.

you misunderstood it. SAS doesnt have longhaul boeing planes. The airlines you were talking about do.

Quoting BA319-131 (Reply 99):
777 would have been better? We have no idea of an offer Boeing tabled for the 777.

As I just said, I read that the a340 had to leave passengers and cargo sometimes because of weight restrictions when flying CPH-BKK and back again. This meant loss of money especially because airlines earn most of their money on cargo. I think the 777 would have been capable of flying the route fully loaded

Quoting BA319-131 (Reply 99):
Many airlines operate A430's and make good money with them, look as VS as a prime example. You cannot blame the SAS longhauil problems on the aircraft it operates, look at the airline itself.

I didn't. I blamed it for being part of the reason why.

Quoting BA319-131 (Reply 99):
777 would have been better? We have no idea of an offer Boeing tabled for the 777.

i'm going to bed now, so I wont be answering anymore before tomorrow!

andaman · Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:26 am

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 98):
It would be great for us spotters at CPH though Smile

I am sure

I love CPH , but I am happy I can transit there voluntary now, when I need some freedom from my love/hate relationship with Finnair...

flyboy_se · Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:16 am

maybe the best thing for SAS to do is to die.And the Norway,Denmark and Sweden can have their own national airline.
Norwegian Airlines
Swedish Airways
and
Danish Airlines.
i know, not very catchy names but you get my point.
or just build a super mega airport a la Dubai style in the middle of Scandinavia.connected with major cities with super highspeed trains...lol
Anyway , one can dream

abba · Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:22 am

Quoting FinnWings (Reply 70):
I'm also wondering how good cargo loads does SK have on those routes?

On their HK run in the old Kai Tak days they had plenty. They were infamous for needing to take off towards the ocean rather than towards the mountains as they needed the full runway to get airborne. They often had to wait for hours to be able to do that!

Quoting Navigator (Reply 90):
In the meantime Finnair and Thai reaps the profits out of the traffic to Asia from Stockholm. I think this trend for SAS is alarming. The trend is that they will be gone from longhauls perhaps except EWR and ORD within few years from now if they don´t get their act together. Sad for many people perhaps.

It is their cost structure. If they cannot make money competing with TG out of CPH I doubt that can do so competing with TG out of Stockholm. I am also wondering how much is due to them having people stationed all over the place. Even if there are no connection from HK they, nevertheless, still maintain an office here with several expats. I am not sure that it is their costs related to flying that is the only problem.

Abba

prebennorholm · Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:58 am

It is far too early to doom SK long haul flight. This "noise" is the usual SAS method to get union acceptance for cost cutting.

When they say 100 million SEK loss on BKK, then I would like to see what depreciation rate they use on their almost new Airbus 330/340 fleet bought at a cost around 15 billion SEK. 10%, 15%, 20% or even 30%? We won't know until we see the SAS 2005 accounts in roughly 5-6 months time.

When operating a route with new equipment, then it is meaningless to publish profit or loss figures without publishing the depreciation rate used in the accounts.

Depreciation rates are normally chosen in order to optimize the tax bill, less often to give a correct picture of true financial performance.

UpperDeck79 · Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:32 am

Quoting Abba (Reply 103):
Even if there are no connection from HK they, nevertheless, still maintain an office here with several expats. I am not sure that it is their costs related to flying that is the only problem.

That IS really costly! Why on earth would they need an office there anymore...? And with EXPATS! Or even if they still flew there, that would not necessarily mean they need to have an office there. And if they did, it should be local staff.

scalebuilder · Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:33 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 104):
Depreciation rates are normally chosen in order to optimize the tax bill, less often to give a correct picture of true financial performance.

Couldn't agree more about your claim to get even with the unions. It will be a showdown, and it is a must for the survival of this airline.

Depreciation expense is pretty irrelevant when it comes to profitability. Most routes are measured on a cash flow basis. Depreciation is a non-cash expense and does not factor in at all in this equation.

Do not intend to bring doom to SAS by bringing this up, but you almost give the public reason not to worry. I think the public should - including shareholders.

SAS has a cost problem that goes across all of its operating units. Somehow the overhead it is allocated, and somehow a lot of this cost ends up in the International Division. Maybe it's fair. I couldn't tell you. But no matter how you slice and dice the cost, it does not eliminate the problem. You have total cost and unit cost. Both seem to be too high within SAS - meaning that CPH-SEA does not seem to be doing any better than CPH-BKK or any other long haul route for that matter.

I wish SAS could develop new business models that could tell them right upfront what is profitable and a "go" versus not. Continental entered a low key and unfamiliar market like Oslo, and enjoys great success today. Doing your homework pays off, because this airline obviously came prepared. SAS needs to do the same.

sk909 · Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:25 pm

The main reason for SAS to loss money on long-haul, is that the C/A unions have made super deal for their members.

In the lovely days of former CEO Jan Carlson, an agreement was made that the C/A crew should consist of 3 parts Swedish C/A, 2 parts Danish C/A and 2 parts Norwegian C/A. This means that for every long haul flight from CPH 5/7 of the C/A crew are transported from Sweden (Stockholm) and Norway (Oslo). The last 2/7 are from CPH. Now on an A330/A340 flying with 10 C/A, this gives 7 of the total 10 C/A are transported from Stockholm and Oslo, and in some cases given an overnight in CPH. The problem is that they are doing any production on these flights. This also applies to long-haul flights from OSL and ARN!!!

So, for as long as that agreement is kept, SAS will fly with a too a high base cost to compete with any airline. If this agreement was to removed SAS would save 200-350 mill. SEK. annually

Imagine UA had to fly in C/A from all its HUB's to fill the long haul flights? Well, UA would exist, not even in §11!!!!

Furthermore the A330/A340 is the wrong aircraft for SAS. It's to big, and to small. It is to big on the thin routes from Oslo, and with some of the thin from Stockholm, and too small for the potential money-making routes from CPH. If SAS had chosen a mix of 757ETOPS/767/772 instead of the Airbus, they would have been able to implement the right equipment for the right job. Don't misunderstand me, I love the Airbus! I love been able to sit in the lav and look at the world beneath through the windows! But it's the wrong plane for SAS.

And instead of cutting routes, SAS should start expanding. Just a few possible new destinations, could be: DXB, MIA, LAX, (SFO), CAN, SIN (non-stop), SZX, SEL.

And improving Business Class wouldn't be such a bad idea!!!

vadheim · Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:04 pm

It is strange, though, that SAS in 2004 discontinued Oslo - New York after 30 years or so in service. I guess the route was not profitable, however, international traffic from e.g. OSL is increasing some 10% per month at the moment so at least the potential market should be better than ever. Continental seem to do well and OSL is reaching all time high passenger record this year with 16 million passengers in 2005.

[Edited 2005-12-23 14:05:31]

sk909 · Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:24 pm

Quoting Vadheim (Reply 108):
It is strange, though, that SAS in 2004 discontinued Oslo - New York after 30 years or so in service. I guess the route was not profitable, however, international traffic from e.g. OSL is increasing some 10% per month at the moment so at least the potential market should be better than ever. Continental seem to do well and OSL is reaching all time high passenger record this year with 16 million passengers in 2005.

Yes well that is why SAS should have acquired 757/767 in order to service that particular route. With a 757, as CO operates, they would be able to make money. In time they could upgrade it to a 767 or even a 777.

Because of the 3-2-2 (3 swedish, 2 norwegian and 2 danish C/A) agreement SAS spends a lot of money on transfering C/A to CPH/OSL/ARN.

And Vadheim, I agree with you that it is sad that SAS discontinued it. SAS even made money on it with its 767! Yet when the A330 came then suddenly couldn't make money. A330 is too big, and too small for SAS.

jlb · Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:42 pm

This thread is so full of crap... so I'll join in with a few stupid comments too:

1) "SAS should fly longhaul from more destinations in Scandinavia" Shure great idea, we have all these mega-cities that can generate traffic - not. So they should move the hub to Stockholm then, since that city has so much more business O&D than CPH, apparantly. But then they would have to move more feed traffic there too, effectively moving the connecting Scandinavia-Europe transfer hub as well, probably not a very good idea.

2) "The 777 would solve all problems" Yes, or that super efficient MD11 that Finnair has so much succes with. But as apparently the 343's of SAS can't even make CPH-BKK with a full load, as I can read in this thread, it is clearly a shitty plane. To big, to small or just to 4-engined??

Maybe we should try to look at costs carried over from happy monompoly days. A few totally uninformed guesses would be: Outstation staff?, C/A flexibility (think I read that they get 2 nights in SEA pr contract, so they can be super cheery on the way back), management overhead?, wages and working conditions in ground service? If anybody has any insight into these issues it would be interesting to hear about, rather than the usual crap about hub change or the 777.

AF022 · Sat Dec 24, 2005 12:08 am

SAS has a big strike against it with multiple hubs. It is extremely difficult to make multiple hubs work.

sk909 · Sat Dec 24, 2005 12:17 am

Quoting Jlb (Reply 110):
Maybe we should try to look at costs carried over from happy monompoly days. A few totally uninformed guesses would be: Outstation staff?, C/A flexibility (think I read that they get 2 nights in SEA pr contract, so they can be super cheery on the way back), management overhead?, wages and working conditions in ground service? If anybody has any insight into these issues it would be interesting to hear about, rather than the usual crap about hub change or the 777.

Exactly my point. As I pointed out SK operates with too high a base cost making it difficult to compete with fx TG. A left over from "the old days". They are operating with 3-2-2 which is draining SK for money.

The management is not dynamic enough, to be able to compete in todays action pumped world. SK world is too static. And the management haven't been able to be strong enough to handle the unions.

scalebuilder · Sat Dec 24, 2005 12:22 am

Quoting Jlb (Reply 110):
rather than the usual crap about hub change or the 777.

Good points.

Facts about SAS compared to other competing airlines:

1. The cost of jet fuel is about the same for SAS as for other airlines.
2. Lease rates or the cost of aircraft are about the same.
3. SAS aircraft do not burn any more fuel than the competition (unless the
laws of physics have ceased to exist).
4. SAS can price their product somewhat at a premium and still fly with full
loads.
5. SAS can fly just about anywhere they find opportunity with little restriction.
6. SAS serves some of the most affluent markets in the world.

There is nothing that is holding SAS back from achieving success. The only negative would be this airline's interest and financing cost. It has like become a bigger burden due to credit downgrades.

It comes back to operational cost. Recently I read that the airline was planning on eliminating 300+ pilots. I am unaware that this decision was made in conjunction with other cuts in traffic as well. If not, I can only sit here and wonder why these 300 pilots were needed in the first place.

If anyone has specific information that is publicly available, I would love to see the following:

1. Maintenance cost as percent of total revenues.
2. Total cost of employees as a percent of total revenues.

These are high level measures that may conceal more than they reveal, but it would still be very interesting to have these available for SAS airline only.

Sincerely,

Scalebuilder

United787 · Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:30 am

Quoting Andaman (Reply 89):
Nope. Some 550 Swedes and 180 Finns died by the tsunami, less other Nordics. It seems the tsunami is forgotten by Nordic tourists sooner than expected, also noticed that myself in Thailand last month. Finnair's planes to Thailand are packed.

I would disagree. I am in Vietnam right now, just left Thailand and in talking to a lot of people, especially Nordics, it seems like there was a huge drop off in Nordic, especially Swedish, travellers to Thailand after being hit so hard last year. I would bet this plays a part into the SAS troubles on their BKK route.

abrelosojos · Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:02 am

= I read through this post and learnt nothing about why SK is doing poorly. I have an OAG from 1952 and its weird to see one of the pioneering intercontinental airlines struggling to make a profit on a route which has 100% traffic.

-A.

PS: Are you serious about the 3 Swedes, 2 Danes and Norwegians in crew policy?

AirPacific747 · Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:19 am

Quoting Abrelosojos (Reply 115):
PS: Are you serious about the 3 Swedes, 2 Danes and Norwegians in crew policy?

yes

andaman · Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:51 am

Quoting United787 (Reply 114):

I would disagree. I am in Vietnam right now, just left Thailand and in talking to a lot of people, especially Nordics, it seems like there was a huge drop off in Nordic, especially Swedish, travellers to Thailand after being hit so hard last year. I would bet this plays a part into the SAS troubles on their BKK route.

So SAS and Finnair have a different situation then. This winter Finnair has more flights to BKK than last year, even twice a day in mid winter.
Plus regular charter service to Phuket.

abrelosojos · Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:33 am

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 116):

yes

= WOW. I did not know Scandanavians were that territorial. It will be interesting to see how such rules change as the industry continues to evolve.

-A.

copenhagenboy · Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:20 am

"I would disagree. I am in Vietnam right now, just left Thailand and in talking to a lot of people, especially Nordics, it seems like there was a huge drop off in Nordic, especially Swedish, travellers to Thailand after being hit so hard last year. I would bet this plays a part into the SAS troubles on their BKK route."

Don't agree, the Danes are doing almost an airbridge to Thailand, esp. Phuket this winther. The charter companies Mytravel and StarTour (TuI) needed to have extra planes in january and february because of demands. I think they have more travellers that last year. But I have to conferm it. SAS is not in troubles because of this. Their planes are full now, and they are offering fares which is in fact quite expensive. They would not do that if the planes were empty.

AirPacific747 · Sat Dec 24, 2005 10:14 am

Quoting Abrelosojos (Reply 118):
= WOW. I did not know Scandanavians were that territorial. It will be interesting to see how such rules change as the industry continues to evolve.

oh, we have a very violent past, you know Smile

(Abrelosojos, I sent you an IM earlier today. Sorry about the delay, I didnt know I had any new messages)

scalebuilder · Sat Dec 24, 2005 10:33 am

Quoting Andaman (Reply 117):
So SAS and Finnair have a different situation then. This winter Finnair has more flights to BKK than last year, even twice a day in mid winter.

You're absolutely wrong my friend. SAS and Finnair do not face different market scenarios. SAS continues to blame the tsunami for the full but yet unprofitable planes that they have decided to fly to BKK. Finnair has found continued success serving a market that this airline has served well in the past. Way to go Finnair!

Quoting Abrelosojos (Reply 118):
= WOW. I did not know Scandinavians were that territorial. It will be interesting to see how such rules change as the industry continues to evolve.

The national staffing ratio on international flights..well...it is a ridicilous rule that costs serious money. Someone quoted an annual cost in the neighborhood of 350 SEK. Seems high, but would still agree that it likely runs in the hundreds of millions.

I don't think Scandinavians are particularly territorial. I do know, however, that they want an airline they can count on, and one they know will be there when they need it.

andaman · Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:13 am

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 121):

You're absolutely wrong my friend. SAS and Finnair do not face different market scenarios. SAS continues to blame the tsunami for the full but yet unprofitable planes that they have decided to fly to BKK. Finnair has found continued success serving a market that this airline has served well in the past. Way to go Finnair!

I ment different situation in the meaning SAS seems to have big problems here while Finnair is doing better.
Still it's not clear to me what excatly is SAS's problem. So A340 is a wrong choice for them? Finnair have plans to lease their first A340 next summer already (instead of the 8th MD-11), I hope they don't go wrong...

scalebuilder · Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:24 am

Quoting Andaman (Reply 122):
I ment different situation in the meaning SAS seems to have big problems here while Finnair is doing better.

I may as well have said that you are right. Because you are. Finnair is simply doing much better on their Asian routes than SAS is.

I admire your national airline. Smile

andaman · Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:47 am

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 123):

I may as well have said that you are right. Because you are. Finnair is simply doing much better on their Asian routes than SAS is.

I admire your national airline.

As a tax payer I can only wish all the best for AY... Smile

Their success in Asia has also brought new jobs in business.
But I wish all the best for the healthy competition too, that's needed here up north!

AirPacific747 · Sat Dec 24, 2005 5:16 pm

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 121):
Someone quoted an annual cost in the neighborhood of 350 SEK.

hmm that doesn't sound right.. thats like 50 US dollars or so

hodja · Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:39 pm

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 116):
Quoting Abrelosojos (Reply 115):
PS: Are you serious about the 3 Swedes, 2 Danes and Norwegians in crew policy?

yes

Actually, I'm pretty sure they've already dispensed with this rule as part of the grand turnaround plan.

scalebuilder · Sat Dec 24, 2005 8:44 pm

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 125):
hmm that doesn't sound right.. thats like 50 US dollars or so

Amout $50 million. It's small potatoes if you ask me.

AirPacific747 · Sat Dec 24, 2005 10:57 pm

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 125):
350 SEK.

350 SEK is about 50 us dollars. You wrote 350 SEK, not 350 million SEK Wink

a couple of zero's makes a huge difference.. trust me. lol

scalebuilder · Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:38 pm

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 128):
350 SEK is about 50 us dollars. You wrote 350 SEK, not 350 million SEK a couple of zero's makes a huge difference.. trust me. lol

I believe we are discussing everything in either millions of SEK or $s here. This discussion would not make a whole lot of sense otherwise. Cool

AirPacific747 · Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:05 am

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 129):

I believe we are discussing everything in either millions of SEK or $s here. This discussion would not make a whole lot of sense otherwise.

Yes. We are discussing in millions of SEK. That is why you need to remember to write the extra zeros or simply just write millions at the end of the amount. Otherwise it doesn't make sense, just as you said.

sk909 · Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:00 am

Quoting Hodja (Reply 126):
Actually, I'm pretty sure they've already dispensed with this rule as part of the grand turnaround plan.

Well, no!!! Unfortunately... They have made some slight changes, but the 3-2-2 rule still rules!!! Though I think the changes are that C/A don't get an extra night after their return to scandinavia.

Merry Christmas. present

persotvik · Sun Dec 25, 2005 3:39 am

Quoting FinnWings (Reply 70):
The situation is even more interesting if we consider that an A330/340 is definitely more economical aircraft to operate than MD-11 at least what comes to fuel consumption.

How come?
The A343 has four engines and the MD11 three efficient GE og PW engines.

scalebuilder · Sun Dec 25, 2005 7:41 am

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 130):
Yes. We are discussing in millions of SEK. That is why you need to remember to write the extra zeros or simply just write millions at the end of the amount. Otherwise it doesn't make sense, just as you said.

Truly apologize. I didn't mean to confuse the issue at all for you by not putting millions behind the figures I quoted you in my post..... Smile

AirPacific747 · Sun Dec 25, 2005 8:30 am

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 133):
Truly apologize. I didn't mean to confuse the issue at all for you by not putting millions behind the figures I quoted you in my post..... Smile

thats okay. I forgive you because I am such a nice person Smile

andaman · Sun Dec 25, 2005 8:34 am

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 133):
Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 130):
Yes. We are discussing in millions of SEK. That is why you need to remember to write the extra zeros or simply just write millions at the end of the amount. Otherwise it doesn't make sense, just as you said.

This is one reason more why all Europe should join the Euro zone Smile

more simple many ways.

scalebuilder · Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:24 am

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 134):
thats okay. I forgive you because I am such a nice person

SAS would likely love that I actually skipped those zeros describing their problem. Wouldn't seem like such a problem anylonger at all. Smile

AirPacific747 · Sun Dec 25, 2005 5:58 pm

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 136):
SAS would likely love that I actually skipped those zeros describing their problem. Wouldn't seem like such a problem anylonger at all.

lol

MAS777 · Sun Dec 25, 2005 7:20 pm

Quoting Flyboy_se (Reply 102):
maybe the best thing for SAS to do is to die.

Look at what happened when Malaysia-Singapore Airlines dissolved in 1972. We got 2 of the world's best carriers operating today.

scalebuilder · Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:00 pm

Quoting Mas777 (Reply 138):
Look at what happened when Malaysia-Singapore Airlines dissolved in 1972. We got 2 of the world's best carriers operating today.

Are you suggesting a repeat?

MAS777 · Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:36 am

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 139):
Are you suggesting a repeat?

Well - I think its hard for any company or business to serve several masters and before SAS swallowed Braathens - maybe Norway should have considered closely (although I guess they did) making Braathens its national airline and pull-out of SAS.

This may have started the ball rolling and if it had - well - hard to predict - but we may have 3 very different Scandinavian carriers flying today, each serving FBU, CPH and ARN to different markets and competing on international markets.

zbrox · Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:16 am

I quite agree with the splitting of SAS idea. The difference in culture between northern/central Sweden and south Sweden/Denmark is too big (South Sweden used to be part of Denmark until 1658).

It will always just be a lot of energy put into fighting rather than management. Danes are merchants at heart (Look at how big Maersk are in Qatar for example). Swedes are engineers. Norwegians are just rich...
(Finns are brilliant at whatever they do...)
Better a good divorce than a bad marriage

scalebuilder · Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:41 am

Quoting Zbrox (Reply 141):
I quite agree with the splitting of SAS idea. The difference in culture between northern/central Sweden and south Sweden/Denmark is too big (South Sweden used to be part of Denmark until 1658).

I'm not sure where you're heading with this. Cultural differences, between people of the Scandinavian countries, rather than among employees within the SAS organization, are the unlikely culprits of why SAS is doing poorly today. I would think there is more that unite the Scandinavian countries and its people than what is dividing them. There's got to be a better reason for why SAS is not making any sense in this day and age.

Quoting Zbrox (Reply 141):
It will always just be a lot of energy put into fighting rather than management. Danes are merchants at heart (Look at how big Maersk are in Qatar for example). Swedes are engineers. Norwegians are just rich...
(Finns are brilliant at whatever they do...)
Better a good divorce than a bad marriage

There is an old saying about the Scandinavians... or people of the Nordic countries. If you want to bring a product to market, you would want the Finns to design it, the Swedes to produce it, the Danes to market it......and what about those Norwegians? Well....they'll buy it! Smile

(explains why you say they are rich)

On a more serious note....I think there is a lot of potential for SAS to be the vibrant and innovative airline it used to be. It will, however, take a true leader who has has clear visions on how to get there. These are visions that will go well beyond the cost cutting measures that we have seen recently, and that are confused with true leadership. It will have to start with how this airline is organized. Today it exists in too may parts; during Jan Carlzon's days it was one coherent, successful and dynamic organization, certainly in parts, but where employees shared very similar goals - that is to be successful, and to build one strong airline. Not several. And successful they were. The valuable principles that he brought to the table and successfully implemented need to be revisited.

Maybe SAS will simply die in it's current day form, and need to reinvent itself. As we speak, segments of the airline are losing ground every day.

To read any kind of update or press release about SAS today has simply become so messy and confusing that it is hard to say how they are doing overall.

Oykie · Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:48 pm

Quoting Bjornstrom (Reply 14):
SAS are about to order a new A340 next year and SIN is a potential destination.

Do you have a link for this?

I do believe that the A330/A340 mix was not the right Airplane for SAS. Atleast they should have bought a A330-200 for the OSL-EWR toute. They tried to get one used, but was not able to get one. Also they found that they could not make OSL-EWR economically with a 757.

Matt27 · Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:12 pm

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 143):
I do believe that the A330/A340 mix was not the right Airplane for SAS.

OK. You don't think that. But, what shall SAS do? Sell the Airbuses and buy Boeing instead? Very economical...
I have no idea which a/c that is best suited for SAS' routes, but they made their choice and bought A330/A340s. I don't believe it's SAS' fleet that make the company lose money. It's the whole organization that needs a new structure.
And about the B757 that would operate OSL-EWR-OSL. CO can do that with a profit because they have many 757s. SAS would have bought/leased just one and I doubt that is economical.

Oykie · Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:31 pm

Quoting Matt27 (Reply 144):
Sell the Airbuses and buy Boeing instead?

Now that they got them they should hold onto them. You are right concerning this. Indeed the planes was to large for some of their routes. The problem with the 767 was lack of cargo. But maybe they should have hold onto most of them and maybe put in a 767-400ER on the east-coast routes coupled with some 777? And when they bought the A330, why no A330-200?

Could an Idea be to put more seats in the planes they have? They have a low density. SAS have 261 seats. 3 class configuration on airbus.com is 295 seats.

It's the whole organization that needs a new structure. That I agree on. They are to old fashioned. Have they started using 2 pilots instead of 3 to EWR,IAD, and ORD?

[Edited 2006-01-11 11:47:11]

sk909 · Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:40 pm

Quoting Matt27 (Reply 144):
And about the B757 that would operate OSL-EWR-OSL. CO can do that with a profit because they have many 757s. SAS would have bought/leased just one and I doubt that is economical.

The reason why they can't make money with a 757 is the 3-2-2 agreement. The base cost is to high and they won't be able to make any route with 757 economical. But besides from that the 757 would be the perfect airplane for SK. Especially from OSL.

Oykie · Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:44 pm

Quoting SK909 (Reply 146):
3-2-2 agreement.

What is the 3-2-2 agreement?

UpperDeck79 · Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:45 pm

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 147):
What is the 3-2-2 agreement?

It's already discussed in this thread... so read above!

sk909 · Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:56 pm

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 147):
What is the 3-2-2 agreement?

An agreement SK has made with the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish F/A unions, that every long haul flight from either country has to have 42% Swedish C/A, and 29 % Danish and Norwegian C/A, each. Making it quite expensive to transport C/A from Sweden and Norway to Denmark, and vice versa.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net